Kan proteiner

[Gjest omdannes til fett?]

Har lest i innleggene under her at det ikke er lurt å spise for mye karbohydrater,for det som ikke blir forbrukt omdannes til fett.

Hva da med proteiner,hvis man f.eks bare spiser proteiner,vil ikke da også energioverskuddet omdannes til fett?

[Gjest Dr Atkins]

Omsetningen av proteiner er større enn mengden som normalt spises. Proteiner blir brutt ned til aminosyrer i fordøyelsen. Når kroppens behov for aminosyrer er dekket, viloverskuddet brukes direkte som energi, eller omdannes til glukose og fett.

Hvor stor del som lagres som fett, vet jeg ikke, men jeg antar at den ikke er så stor som ved overskudd av karbohydrat.

[tren hardt!]

Omsetningen av proteiner er større enn mengden som normalt spises. Proteiner blir brutt ned til aminosyrer i fordøyelsen. Når kroppens behov for aminosyrer er dekket, viloverskuddet brukes direkte som energi, eller omdannes til glukose og fett.

Hvor stor del som lagres som fett, vet jeg ikke, men jeg antar at den ikke er så stor som ved overskudd av karbohydrat.

Karbohydrater vil i veldig liten grad omdannes til fett, protein enda mindre. Syntesen av fett fra karb og protein er i praksis nesten ubetydelig.

[Slippen]

Alt med moderasjon. Det gjelder både karbohydrater og proteiner! Vi trenger begge deler, men ikke for mye og ikke for lite. En vanlig dag for friske personer skal vanligvis inneholde: 55% eller mere karbohydrater,

Som de andre har sagt, så omdannes protein lite til fett. Men det er andre ting man burde tenke på: For mye protein er ikke bra for leveren og nyrene. Og typen protein har også mye å si: Animalsk protein har vist seg å ha større risiko for høyere kolesterol, kreft, og hjertesykdommer.

[Nemesis]

Karbohydrater vil i veldig liten grad omdannes til fett, protein enda mindre. Syntesen av fett fra karb og protein er i praksis nesten ubetydelig.

For noe tull. Hva skjer når du sitter i sofaen hele dagen og spiser snop og drikker brus? Jepp, man blir feit. Overskudd av karbohydrater og proteiner omdannes til fett, sørgelig men sant. Vi er laget slik at ingenting skal gå til spille.

[Slippen]

For noe tull. Hva skjer når du sitter i sofaen hele dagen og spiser snop og drikker brus? Jepp, man blir feit. Overskudd av karbohydrater og proteiner omdannes til fett, sørgelig men sant. Vi er laget slik at ingenting skal gå til spille.

Ja, jeg er enig med deg Nemesis. Mulig jeg ikke forklarte bra nok hva jeg sa.

Vi trenger riktig mengde proteiner, karbohydrater og fett. Er det overbruk av karbohydrater og protein, blir det lagret som fett. Proteiner/karbohydrater blir først brukt til viktige gjøremål i kroppen, MEN er det mere proteiner/karbohydrater enn det vi trenger, blir det lagret som fett!

Jeg tror absolutt ikke på noe høy protein diett! For mye protein vil ikke være sunt for kroppen våres, spesielt for leveren og nyrene. Dessuten fører animalsk protein med seg også ekstra animalsk fett og kalorier, som har vist seg å øke risikoen for kroniske sykdommer!

[tren hardt!]

Ja, jeg er enig med deg Nemesis. Mulig jeg ikke forklarte bra nok hva jeg sa.

Vi trenger riktig mengde proteiner, karbohydrater og fett. Er det overbruk av karbohydrater og protein, blir det lagret som fett. Proteiner/karbohydrater blir først brukt til viktige gjøremål i kroppen, MEN er det mere proteiner/karbohydrater enn det vi trenger, blir det lagret som fett!

Jeg tror absolutt ikke på noe høy protein diett! For mye protein vil ikke være sunt for kroppen våres, spesielt for leveren og nyrene. Dessuten fører animalsk protein med seg også ekstra animalsk fett og kalorier, som har vist seg å øke risikoen for kroniske sykdommer!

At kroppen KAN produsere fett av karbs og protein betyr ikke at den gjør det. Produserer kroppen din så mye som 10 gram i løpet av en dag er det svært mye. DNL av karbohydrater forgår i større grad ved insulinsensitivitet og ved høyt inntak av fruktose og sukrose(50% fruktose).

Under normale omstendigheter er den av minimal betydning.

[tren hardt!]

Alt med moderasjon. Det gjelder både karbohydrater og proteiner! Vi trenger begge deler, men ikke for mye og ikke for lite. En vanlig dag for friske personer skal vanligvis inneholde: 55% eller mere karbohydrater,

Som de andre har sagt, så omdannes protein lite til fett. Men det er andre ting man burde tenke på: For mye protein er ikke bra for leveren og nyrene. Og typen protein har også mye å si: Animalsk protein har vist seg å ha større risiko for høyere kolesterol, kreft, og hjertesykdommer.

Du forveksler animalsk protein med animalsk fett.

Dessuten er det ikke noen sammenheng mellom nyre- og leverproblemer i friske mennesker.

Du glemte forresten en annen seiglivet myte: At høyt proteininntak fører til benskjørhet. Dette har også vist seg å være feil.

[Nemesis]

At kroppen KAN produsere fett av karbs og protein betyr ikke at den gjør det. Produserer kroppen din så mye som 10 gram i løpet av en dag er det svært mye. DNL av karbohydrater forgår i større grad ved insulinsensitivitet og ved høyt inntak av fruktose og sukrose(50% fruktose).

Under normale omstendigheter er den av minimal betydning.

Jaha? Og karbohydratene som blir til overs, hva skjer med de da? Grunngi innleggene dine litt mer. Skilles det ut i urin? Hos diabetikere ja, hos oss andre lagres det som ikke forbrukes. Det samme skjer med de lange karbonkjedene i proteinene (ekstra aminosyrer skilles ut som urea, de kan ikke lagres).

[tren hardt!]

Jaha? Og karbohydratene som blir til overs, hva skjer med de da? Grunngi innleggene dine litt mer. Skilles det ut i urin? Hos diabetikere ja, hos oss andre lagres det som ikke forbrukes. Det samme skjer med de lange karbonkjedene i proteinene (ekstra aminosyrer skilles ut som urea, de kan ikke lagres).

Karbohydrater lagres i muskler, leveren og i fettvev. At de lagres i fettvev er IKKE det samme som at de omdannes til fett. De kan her konverteres til glyserol. Jeg vet at muskelceller aldri vil gi fra seg glukose, men jeg vet ikke om dette også gjelder fettceller.

Inntak av karbohydrater, protein og i mindre grad fett fører til utskillelse av insulin. Foruten å øke antalllet glut4 i cellemembranene, vil insulin trigger fettinlagringen ved at den stimulerer fettceller til å utskille enzymet LPL. Denne mekanismen er vanligvis den viktigste for fettsyntesen. Insulin vil også nedregulerer lipolysiske hormoner som glukagon og veksthormon.

Aminosyres kan deamineres i en prosess som kalles glukoneogenesis. I de tilfellene (i snitt 58%) hvor gjenværende struktur er et karbohydrat kan de også brukes og lagres som karb. I de resterende tilfellene er grunnstrukturen et keton, dette kan forbrennes i periferien men kan ikke lagres og vil bli skilt ut i urinen. Nitrogenet fra deamineringen vil også skilles ut gjennom urin og svette.

[Nemesis]

Karbohydrater lagres i muskler, leveren og i fettvev. At de lagres i fettvev er IKKE det samme som at de omdannes til fett. De kan her konverteres til glyserol. Jeg vet at muskelceller aldri vil gi fra seg glukose, men jeg vet ikke om dette også gjelder fettceller.

Inntak av karbohydrater, protein og i mindre grad fett fører til utskillelse av insulin. Foruten å øke antalllet glut4 i cellemembranene, vil insulin trigger fettinlagringen ved at den stimulerer fettceller til å utskille enzymet LPL. Denne mekanismen er vanligvis den viktigste for fettsyntesen. Insulin vil også nedregulerer lipolysiske hormoner som glukagon og veksthormon.

Aminosyres kan deamineres i en prosess som kalles glukoneogenesis. I de tilfellene (i snitt 58%) hvor gjenværende struktur er et karbohydrat kan de også brukes og lagres som karb. I de resterende tilfellene er grunnstrukturen et keton, dette kan forbrennes i periferien men kan ikke lagres og vil bli skilt ut i urinen. Nitrogenet fra deamineringen vil også skilles ut gjennom urin og svette.

Det stemmer det. Men da er vi vel enige? Fettceller skiller ikke ut glukose, kun frie fettsyrer og glyserol så vidt jeg husker. Uff, trenger visst en repetisjon av biokjemien...

[tren hardt!]

Det stemmer det. Men da er vi vel enige? Fettceller skiller ikke ut glukose, kun frie fettsyrer og glyserol så vidt jeg husker. Uff, trenger visst en repetisjon av biokjemien...

Jepp, vi er nok enige. Det er det totale kaloriinntaket som er avgjørende.

har du noe utdannelse i dette?

[Nemesis]

Jepp, vi er nok enige. Det er det totale kaloriinntaket som er avgjørende.

har du noe utdannelse i dette?

Medisinstudent. Men dette var 2 sem pensum, og jeg har visst glemt mye. Du da?

[tren hardt!]

Medisinstudent. Men dette var 2 sem pensum, og jeg har visst glemt mye. Du da?

Selvstudium.

Går på siving data, så dette er egentlig ikke særlig eksamensrelevant.

kanskje jeg burde byttelinje.

[Ernæringsfysiolog Monica F Dahlseide]

Hei på deg,

Ja, proteiner kan omdannes til fett dersom man får overskudd av det, selv om karbohydrater nok har lettere for å bli omdannet enn proteiner. Rådene om å ikke spise så mye karbohydrater er ikke sunne kostholdsråd. Karbohydrater er et viktig næringsstoff som bør utgjøre over halvparten av kaloriene vi spiser daglig.

Vennlig hilsen

[Ernæringsfysiolog Monica F Dahlseide]

Du forveksler animalsk protein med animalsk fett.

Dessuten er det ikke noen sammenheng mellom nyre- og leverproblemer i friske mennesker.

Du glemte forresten en annen seiglivet myte: At høyt proteininntak fører til benskjørhet. Dette har også vist seg å være feil.

Hei på deg, tren hardt!

Slippen tar ikke feil her.

Det du sier om benskjørhet er fremdeles noe usikkert - studier viser litt forskjellig. Men det er hvertfall sikkert at mye animalske proteiner øker faren for benskjørhet.

Langvarig høyt inntak av proteiner kan føre til nyre og leverskader selv i friske mennesker.

Vennlig hilsen

[tren hardt!]

Hei på deg, tren hardt!

Slippen tar ikke feil her.

Det du sier om benskjørhet er fremdeles noe usikkert - studier viser litt forskjellig. Men det er hvertfall sikkert at mye animalske proteiner øker faren for benskjørhet.

Langvarig høyt inntak av proteiner kan føre til nyre og leverskader selv i friske mennesker.

Vennlig hilsen

Nutritional Myths that Just Won't Die!

By Will Brink

When it comes to the topic of sports nutrition there are many myths and fallacies that float around like some specter in the shadows. They pop up when you least expect them and throw a monkey wrench into the best laid plans of the hard training athlete trying to make some headway. Of all the myths that surface from time to time, the protein myth seems to be the most deep rooted and pervasive. It just won't go away. The problem is, exactly who, or which group, is perpetuating the "myth" cant be easily identified. You see, the conservative nutritional/medical community thinks it is the bodybuilders who perpetuate the myth that athletes need more protein and we of the bodybuilding community think it is them (the mainstream nutritional community) that is perpetuating the myth that athletes don't need additional protein! Who is right?

The conservative medical/nutritional community is an odd group. They make up the rules as they go along and maintain what I refer to as the "nutritional double standard." If for example you speak about taking in additional vitamin C to possibly prevent cancer, heart disease, colds, and other afflictions, they will come back with "there is still not enough data to support the use of vitamin C as a preventative measure for these diseases," when in fact there are literary hundreds of studies showing the many benefits of this vitamin for the prevention and treatment of said diseases. And of course, if you tell them you are on a high protein diet because you are an athlete they will tell you, "oh you don't want to do that, you don't need it and it will lead to kidney disease" without a single decent study to back up their claim! You see they too are susceptible to the skulking myth specter that spreads lies and confusion. In this article I want to address once and for all (hopefully) the protein myth as it applies to what the average person is told when they tell their doctor or some anemic "all you need are the RDAs" spouting nutritionist that he or she is following a high protein diet.

Myth #1 "Athletes don't need extra protein"

I figured we should start this myth destroying article off with the most annoying myth first. Lord, when will this one go away? Now the average reader person is probably thinking "who in the world still believes that ridiculous statement?" The answer is a great deal of people, even well educated medical professionals and scientists who should know better, still believe this to be true. Don't forget, the high carb, low fat, low protein diet recommendations are alive and well with the average nutritionist, doctor, and of course the "don't confuse us with the facts" media following close behind. For the past half century or so scientists using crude methods and poor study design with sedentary people have held firm to the belief that bodybuilders, strength athletes of various types, runners, and other highly active people did not require any more protein than Mr. Potato Head.....err, I mean the average couch potato. However, In the past few decades researchers using better study designs and methods with real live athletes have come to a different conclusion altogether, a conclusion hard training bodybuilders have known for years. The fact that active people do indeed require far more protein than the RDA to keep from losing hard earned muscle tissue when dieting or increasing muscle tissue during the off season.

In a recent review paper on the subject one of the top researchers in the field (Dr. Peter Lemon) states "...These data suggest that the RDA for those engaged in regular endurance exercise should be about 1.2-1.4 grams of protein/kilogram of body mass (150%-175% of the current RDA) and 1.7 - 1.8 grams of protein/kilogram of body mass per day (212%-225% of the current RDA) for strength exercisers."

Another group of researchers in the field of protein metabolism have come to similar conclusions repeatedly. They found that strength training athletes eating approximately the RDA/RNI for protein showed a decreased whole body protein synthesis (losing muscle jack!) on a protein intake of 0.86 grams per kilogram of bodyweight. They came to an almost identical conclusion as that of Dr. Lemon in recommending at least 1.76g per kilogram of bodyweight per day for strength training athletes for staying in positive nitrogen balance/increases in whole body protein synthesis.

This same group found in later research that endurance athletes also need far more protein than the RDA/RNI and that men catabolize (break down) more protein than women during endurance exercise.

They concluded "In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than sedentary individuals and are above the current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males." All I can say to that is, no sh%# Sherlock?!

Now my intention of presenting the above quotes from the current research is not necessarily to convince the average athlete that they need more protein than Joe shmoe couch potato, but rather to bring to the readers attention some of the figures presented by this current research. How does this information relate to the eating habits of the average athlete and the advice that has been found in the lay bodybuilding literature years before this research ever existed? With some variation, the most common advice on protein intakes that could be-and can be- found in the bodybuilding magazines by the various writers, coaches, bodybuilders, etc., is one gram of protein per pound of body weight per day. So for a 200 pound guy that would be 200 grams of protein per day. No sweat. So how does this advice fair with the above current research findings? Well let's see. Being scientists like to work in kilograms (don't ask me why) we have to do some converting. A kilogram weighs 2.2lbs. So, 200 divided by 2.2 gives us 90.9. Multiply that times 1.8 (the high end of Dr. Lemon's research) and you get 163.6 grams of protein per day. What about the nutritionists, doctors, and others who call(ed) us "protein pushers" all the while recommending the RDA as being adequate for athletes? Lets see. The current RDA is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight: 200 divided by 2.2 x 0.8 = 73 grams of protein per day for a 200lb person. So who was closer, the bodybuilders or the arm chair scientists? Well lets see! 200g (what bodybuilders have recommended for a 200lb athlete) - 163g ( the high end of the current research recommendations for a 200lb person) = 37 grams (the difference between what bodybuilders think they should eat and the current research). How do the RDA pushers fair? Hey, if they get to call us "protein pushers" than we get to call them "RDA pushers!" Anyway, 163g - 73g = (drum role) 90 grams! So it would appear that the bodybuilding community has been a great deal more accurate about the protein needs of strength athletes than the average nutritionist and I don't think this comes as any surprise to any of us. So should the average bodybuilder reduce his protein intake a bit from this data? No, and I will explain why. As with vitamins and other nutrients, you identify what looks to be the precise amount of the compound needed for the effect you want (in this case positive nitrogen balance, increased protein synthesis, etc) and add a margin of safety to account for the biochemical individuality of different people, the fact that there are low grade protein sources the person might be eating, and other variables. So the current recommendation by the majority of bodybuilders, writers, coaches, and others of one gram per pound of bodyweight does a good job of taking into account the current research and adding a margin of safety. One things for sure, a little too much protein is far less detrimental to the athletes goal(s) of increasing muscle mass than too little protein, and this makes the RDA pushers advice just that much more.... moronic, for lack of a better word.

There are a few other points I think are important to look at when we recommend additional protein in the diet of athletes, especially strength training athletes. In the off season, the strength training athletes needs not only adequate protein but adequate calories. Assuming our friend (the 200lb bodybuilder) wants to eat approximately 3500 calories a day, how is he supposed to split his calories up? Again, this is where the bodybuilding community and the conservative nutritional/medical community are going to have a parting of the ways... again. The conservative types would say "that's an easy one, just tell the bodybuilder he should make up the majority of his calories from carbohydrates." Now lets assume the bodybuilder does not want to eat so many carbs. Now the high carb issue is an entirely different fight and article, so I am just not going to go into great depth on the topic here. Suffice it to say, anyone who regularly reads articles, books, etc, >from people such as Dan Duchaine, Dr. Mauro Dipasquale, Barry Sears PhD, Udo Erasmus PhD, yours truly, and others know why the high carb diet bites the big one for losing fat and gaining muscle (In fact, there is recent research that suggests that carbohydrate restriction, not calorie restriction per se, is what's responsible for mobilizing fat stores). So for arguments sake and lack of space, let's just assume our 200lb bodybuilder friend does not want to eat a high carb diet for his own reasons, whatever they may be. What else can he eat? He is only left with fat and protein. If he splits up his diet into say 30% protein, 30 % fat, and 40% carbs, he will be eating 1050 calories as protein (3500x30% = 1050) and 262.5g of protein a day (1050 divided by 4 = 262.5). So what we have is an amount (262.5g) that meets the current research, has an added margin of safety, and an added component for energy/calorie needs of people who don't want to follow a high carb diet, hich is a large percentage of the bodybuilding/strength training community. here are other reasons for a high protein intake such as hormonal effects (i.e. effects on IGF-1, GH, thyroid ), thermic effects, etc., but I think I have made the appropriate point. So is there a time when the bodybuilder might want to go even higher in his percent of calories >from protein than 30%? Sure, when he is dieting. It is well established that carbs are "protein sparing" and so more protein is required as percent of calories when one reduces calories. Also, dieting is a time that preserving lean mass (muscle) is at a premium. Finally, as calories decrease the quality and quantity of protein in the diet is the most important variable for maintaining muscle tissue (as it applies to nutritional factors), and of course protein is the least likely nutrient to be converted to bodyfat. In my view, the above information bodes well for the high protein diet. If you tell the average RDA pusher you are eating 40% protein while on a diet, they will tell you that 40% is far too much protein. But is it? Say our 200lb friend has reduced his calories to 2000 in attempt to reduce his bodyfat for a competition, summer time at the beach, or what ever. Lets do the math. 40% x 2000 = 800 calories from protein or 200g (800 divided by 4). So as you can see, he is actually eating less protein per day than in the off season but is still in the range of the current research with the margin of safety/current bodybuilding recommendations intact.

Bottom line? High protein diets are far better for reducing bodyfat, increasing muscle mass, and helping the hard training bodybuilder achieve his (or her!) goals, and it is obvious that endurance athletes will also benefit from diets higher in protein than the worthless and outdated RDAs.

Myth #2 "High protein diets are bad for you"

So the average person reads the above information on the protein needs and benefits of a high protein diet but remembers in the back of their mind another myth about high protein intakes. "I thought high protein diets are bad for the kidneys and will give you osteoporosis! " they exclaim with conviction and indignation. So what are the medical facts behind these claims and why do so many people, including some medical professionals and nutritionists, still believe it? For starters, the negative health claims of the high protein diet on kidney function is based on information gathered from people who have preexisting kidney problems. You see one of the jobs of the kidneys is the excretion of urea (generally a non toxic compound) that is formed from ammonia (a very toxic compound) which comes from the protein in our diets. People with serious kidney problems have trouble excreting the urea placing more stress on the kidneys and so the logic goes that a high protein diet must be hard on the kidneys for healthy athletes also. Now for the medical and scientific facts. There is not a single scientific study published in a reputable peer - reviewed journal using healthy adults with normal kidney function that has shown any kidney dysfunction what so ever from a high protein diet. Not one of the studies done with healthy athletes that I mentioned above, or other research I have read, has shown any kidney abnormalities at all. Furthermore, animals studies done using high protein diets also fail to show any kidney dysfunction in healthy animals. Now don't forget, in the real world, where millions of athletes have been following high protein diets for decades, there has never been a case of kidney failure in a healthy athlete that was determined to have been caused solely by a high protein diet. If the high protein diet was indeed putting undo stress on our kidneys, we would have seen many cases of kidney abnormalities, but we don't nor will we. From a personal perspective as a trainer for many top athletes from various sports, I have known bodybuilders eating considerably more than the above research recommends (above 600 grams a day) who showed no kidney dysfunction or kidney problems and I personally read the damn blood tests! Bottom line? 1-1.5 grams or protein per pound of bodyweight will have absolutely no ill effects on the kidney function of a healthy athlete, period. Now of course too much of anything can be harmful and I suppose it's possible a healthy person could eat enough protein over a long enough period of time to effect kidney function, but it is very unlikely and has yet to be shown in the scientific literature in healthy athletes.

So what about the osteoporosis claim? That's a bit more complicated but the conclusion is the same. The pathology of osteoporosis involves a combination of many risk factors and physiological variables such as macro nutrient intakes (carbs, proteins, fats), micro nutrient intakes (vitamins, minerals, etc), hormonal profiles, lack of exercise, gender, family history, and a few others. The theory is that high protein intakes raise the acidity of the blood and the body must use minerals from bone stores to "buffer" the blood and bring the blood acidity down, thus depleting one's bones of minerals. Even if there was a clear link between a high protein diet and osteoporosis in all populations (and there is not) athletes have few of the above risk factors as they tend to get plenty of exercise, calories, minerals, vitamins, and have positive hormonal profiles. Fact of the matter is, studies have shown athletes to have denser bones than sedentary people, there are millions of athletes who follow high protein diets without any signs of premature bone loss, and we don't have ex athletes who are now older with higher rates of osteoporosis. In fact, one recent study showed women receiving extra protein from a protein supplement had increased bone density over a group not getting the extra protein! The researchers theorized this was due to an increase in IGF-1 levels which are known to be involved in bone growth. Would I recommend a super high protein diet to some sedentary post menopausal woman? Probably not, but we are not talking about her, we are talking about athletes. Bottom line? A high protein diet does not lead to osteoporosis in healthy athletes with very few risk factors for this affliction, especially in the ranges of protein intake that have been discussed throughout this article.

Myth #3 "All proteins are created equal"

How many times have you heard or read this ridiculous statement? Yes, in a sedentary couch potato who does not care that his butt is the same shape as the cushion he is sitting on, protein quality is of little concern. However, research has shown repeatedly that different proteins have various functional properties that athletes can take advantage of. For example, whey protein concentrate (WPC) has been shown to improve immunity to a variety of challenges and intense exercise has been shown to compromise certain parts of the immune response. WPC is also exceptionally high in the branch chain amino acids which are the amino acids that are oxidized during exercise and have been found to have many benefits to athletes. We also know soy has many uses for athletes, and this is covered in full on the Brinkzone site in another article. Anyway, I could go on all day about the various functional properties of different proteins but there is no need. The fact is that science is rapidly discovering that proteins with different amino acid ratios (and various constituents found within the various protein foods) have very different effects on the human body and it is these functional properties that bodybuilders and other athletes can use to their advantage. Bottom line? Let the people who believe that all proteins are created equal continue to eat their low grade proteins and get nowhere while you laugh all the way to a muscular, healthy, low fat body!

Conclusion

Over the years the above myths have been floating around for so long they have just been accepted as true, even though there is little to no research to prove it and a whole bunch of research that disproves it! I hope this article has been helpful in clearing up some of the confusion for people over the myths surrounding protein and athletes. Of course now I still have to address even tougher myths such as "all fats make you fat and are bad for you," "supplements are a waste of time," and my personal favorite, "a calorie is a calorie." The next time someone gives you a hard time about your high protein intake, copy the latest study on the topic and give it to em. If that does not work, role up the largest bodybuilding magazine you can find and hit hem over the head with it!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1 Lemon, PW, "Is increased dietary protein necessary or beneficial for individuals with a physically active life style?" Nutr. Rev. 54:S169-175, 1996.

2 Lemon, PW, "Do athletes need more dietary protein and amino acids?" International J. Sports Nutri. S39-61, 1995.

3 Tarnopolsky, MA, "Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes." J. Applied. Phys. 73(5): 1986-1995, 1992

4 Phillips, SM, "Gender differences in leucine kinetics and nitrogen balance in endurance athletes." J. Applied Phys. 75(5): 2134-2141, 1993.

5 Tarnopolsky, MA, 1992.

6 Carroll, RM, "Effects of energy compared with carbohydrate restriction on the lipolytic response to epinephrine." Am. J. Clin. Nutri. 62:757-760, 1996.

7 Bounus, G., Gold, P. "The biological activity of undenatured whey proteins: role of glutathione." Clin. Invest. Med. 14:4, 296-309, 1991

8 Bounus, G. "Dietary whey protein inhibits the development of dimethylhydrazine induced malignancy." Clin. Invest. Med. 12: 213-217, 1988.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author

Will Brink is a columnist and regular contributor to MuscleMag International , and is the author of the book Priming The Anabolic Environment: A practical and Scientific Guide to the Art and Science of Gaining Muscle. The book contains all new cutting-edge information on nutrition, training, supplements, and drugs, combined with completely updated and revised training and nutrition articles from Will's best contributions to MuscleMag International. Will graduated from Harvard University with a concentration in the natural sciences, and is a consultant to several supplement companies. He is also an NPC judge and well-known trainer who has helped many bodybuilders (and other athletes) in all facets of precontest and off-season training. For a copy of Priming The Anabolic Environment, see ads in MuscleMag. For all other correspondence, send a self-addressed and stamped envelope to P.O. Box 480, Newton Center, MA 02159. E mail address: [email protected]

Copyright C 1996 by William D. Brink All rights reserved. No copies of this document can be produced without express permission of the author

[tren hardt!]

Hei på deg, tren hardt!

Slippen tar ikke feil her.

Det du sier om benskjørhet er fremdeles noe usikkert - studier viser litt forskjellig. Men det er hvertfall sikkert at mye animalske proteiner øker faren for benskjørhet.

Langvarig høyt inntak av proteiner kan føre til nyre og leverskader selv i friske mennesker.

Vennlig hilsen

Proc Nutr Soc 1999 May;58(2):403-13

Optimal intakes of protein in the human diet.

Millward DJ

Centre for Nutrition and Food Safety, School of Biological Sciences,

University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. [email protected]

For protein, progress is slow in defining quantifiable indicators of

adequacy other than balance and growth. As far as current requirements are

concerned, only

in the case of infants and children is there any case for revision, and

this change is to lower values. Such intakes would appear to be safe when

consumed as

milk formula. In pregnancy, notwithstanding the concern that deficiency

may influence programming of disease in later life, there is little

evidence of any

increased need, and some evidence that increased intakes would pose a

risk. For the elderly there is no evidence of an increased requirement or

of benefit from

increased intakes, except possibly for bone health. For adults, while we

now know much more about metabolic adaptation to varying intakes, there

would

appear to be no case for a change in current recommendations. As far as

risks and benefits of high intakes are concerned, there is now only a weak

case for risk

for renal function. For bone health the established views of risk of high

protein intakes are not supported by newly-emerging data, with benefit

indicated in the

elderly. There is also circumstantial evidence for benefit on blood

pressure and stroke mortality. With athletes there is little evidence of

benefit of increased

intakes in terms of performance, with older literature suggesting an

adverse influence. Thus, given that a safe upper limit is currently

defined as twice the

reference nutrient intake, and that for individuals with high energy

requirements this value (1.5 g/kg per d) is easily exceeded, there is a

case for revising the

definition of a safe upper limit.

__________________________

Am J Clin Nutr 1994 Oct;60(4):501-9

Increased protein requirements in elderly people: new data and

retrospective reassessments.

Campbell WW, Crim MC, Dallal GE, Young VR, Evans WJ

Human Physiology Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition

Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA.

Dietary protein requirements of elderly people were determined by

short-term nitrogen-balance techniques and using calculations recommended

by the 1985

Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation. Twelve men and women aged 56-80 y

were randomly assigned to groups that consumed either 0.80 +/- 0.01 or

1.62 +/- 0.02 g protein.kg-1.d-1 (mean +/- SEM). Net nitrogen balance was

negative for the lower-protein group (-4.6 +/- 3.4 mg N.kg-1.d-1) and

positive for

the higher-protein group (13.6 +/- 1.0 mg N.kg-1.d-1); the intake required

for nitrogen equilibrium was estimated to be 1.00 g.kg-1.d-1.

Nitrogen-balance data

from three previous protein requirement studies in elderly people were

recalculated by using the same balance formula and combined with the

current study data

to provide an overall weighted mean protein requirement estimate of 0.91

+/- 0.043 g.kg-1.d-1. Together, the current and retrospective

nitrogen-balance data

suggest that the mean protein requirement in elderly adults is

considerably greater than the 0.60 g.kg-1.d-1 established by the 1985

Joint FAO/WHO/UNU

Expert Consultation. A safe protein intake for elderly adults would be

1.0-1.25 g.kg-1.d-1 of high-quality protein.

_____________________

Age Ageing 1990 Jul;19(4):S10-24

Amino acids and proteins in relation to the nutrition of elderly people.

Young VR

Laboratory of Human Nutrition, School of Sciences, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology, Cambridge 02139.

In this short review some aspects of body protein and amino acid

metabolism during ageing in human subjects have been explored. The picture

that emerges is a

progressive diminution of total body protein with ageing, due largely to a

decline in the size of the skeletal muscle mass. These changes are

accompanied by a

shift in the overall pattern of whole body protein synthesis and

breakdown, with muscle mass estimated to account for about 30% of whole

body protein

turnover in the young adult, as compared with a lower value of 20% or less

in the elderly subject. The metabolic significance and possible functional

implications of this alteration in the quantitative contribution by muscle

to whole body amino acid and protein dynamics have been considered. The

determination

of requirements for individual essential amino acids and for total protein

has been discussed, and it is evident that the data are limited and often

contradictory.

However, elderly individuals are more likely to be influenced by various

biological, environmental and social factors, the effects of which would

be generally to

increase protein needs above those for younger adults. Thus, in practice,

the protein needs of elderly people are probably higher than for the

young. The decline

in energy intake, together with its possible consequences for reduced

dietary protein utilization, will also tend to increase the protein need

of elderly subjects,

compared with that for physically more active young adults. Until more

data become available, it is recommended for food planning purposes that

an appropriate

protein allowance could be 12-14% of the total energy intake, for mixed

protein sources characteristic of the diets of industrialized countries or

the more affluent

sectors of populations in developing countries. Energy intake should be at

a level that meets the estimates proposed by FAO/WHO/UNU for older

persons.

Tentative recommendations are made herein that intakes of specific

indispensable (essential) amino acids, per unit of protein need, should be

similar to those for

the young school-age child and they should be higher than those currently

judged by international authorities (i.e. FAO/WHO/UNU) to be sufficient

for

maintenance of protein nutritional status in the adult. In view of (i) the

increasing proportion of older individuals within technically advanced

populations

together with the need of this group for health care and (ii) the

important role played by diet and food habits in health maintenance, and

in the aetiology or

progression of degenerative disease, it is vitally necessary to improve

upon the current state of knowledge concerning protein and amino acid

metabolism and

nutrition during the later phases of our lives.

________________________

J Nutr 1998 Jun;128(6):1054-7

Excess dietary protein may not adversely affect bone.

Heaney RP

Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178, USA.

Too little protein is always harmful for the skeleton. Increasing dietary

protein increases endogenous calcium excretion. The ability to adapt

depends upon the

adequacy of an individual's calcium intake. At a population level, the

effect of protein is often minimized because calcium intake rises with

increasing protein

intake. A dietary calcium-to-protein ratio >/=20:1 (mg:g) probably

provides adequate protection for the skeleton. Excess protein will not

harm the skeleton if the

calcium intake is adequate.

__________________________

Am J Clin Nutr 1978 Dec;31(12):2167-80

Effect of a high protein (meat) intake on calcium metabolism in man.

Spencer H, Kramer L, Osis D, Norris C

The effect of a high protein (meat) intake of 2 g/kg on the calcium

excretions and retention and on the intestinal calcium absorption was

studied in man. In the

control study the protein intake averaged 1 g/kg. The studies were carried

out during a low calcium intake of 200 mg/day and a normal calcium intake

of 800

mg/day. Two additional studies were carried out during a calcium intake of

1100 mg/day and one during a 2000 mg calcium intake. During the high

protein-low

calcium intake and during the 800 mg calcium intake the urinary calcium

did not significantly increase. It increased moderately in two studies

during the higher

calcium intakes, however, these excretions decreased with time to control

levels. The lack of a significant increase of the urinary calcium in the

majority of the

studies is probably due to the higher phosphorus content of the high

protein intake. The calcium absorption, determined with 47Ca, the fecal

calcium and

calcium balances did not differ significantly during the high protein

intake. In studies carried out during a low protein (meat) intake of 0.5

g/kg the urinary

calcium changed little and the fecal calcium, the 47Ca absorption, and the

calcium balance remained unchanged.

[Gjest (ikke undertegnet)]

For noe tull. Hva skjer når du sitter i sofaen hele dagen og spiser snop og drikker brus? Jepp, man blir feit. Overskudd av karbohydrater og proteiner omdannes til fett, sørgelig men sant. Vi er laget slik at ingenting skal gå til spille.

du virker som du har peiling på alt ..positivt ment altså du har svart meg på noe før.. takk for svaret foresten...

hvis du husker det så ønsket jeg veldig å legge på meg..

Hvis overskudd av proteiner og karbohydrater omdannes til fett burde ikke jeg få i meg mye av det da?

HVa slags matvarer/ drikke bør jeg få i meg mye av da? Noen eksempel?

[Nemesis]

du virker som du har peiling på alt ..positivt ment altså du har svart meg på noe før.. takk for svaret foresten...

hvis du husker det så ønsket jeg veldig å legge på meg..

Hvis overskudd av proteiner og karbohydrater omdannes til fett burde ikke jeg få i meg mye av det da?

HVa slags matvarer/ drikke bør jeg få i meg mye av da? Noen eksempel?

Hei! Det man ikke forbruker vil omdannes til fett (og glykogen) ja, men det er viktig å få i seg nok når man skal legge på seg. Du bør trene ved siden av, ellers vil alt legge seg som fett og ikke muskler. En del styrketrening vil bidra til økning av muskelmasse og dermed vekt, spis proteiner rett etter trening (f.eks en boks tunfisk eller en tunfisksalat), det er lurt. Ellers bør du bare spise mange små måltider, det er best for magen også. En del fiber er bra, men mye fiber kan hemme opptak av f.eks proteiner så ikke overdriv. Mye karbohydrater, helst i form av de langsomme som bønner, linser, grovt brød. Vet ikke om det var et slikt svar du ville ha, men er det noe annet må du bare spørre!